Kemal al-Din, p. 617; C. Hillenbrand, ‘The career of Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi’, Der Islam, vol. 58 (1981), pp. 250–92. King Baldwin II came to power in Jerusalem in 1118 only after a disputed succession in which Baldwin I’s brother Eustace of Boulogne was an alternative candidate. H. E. Mayer, ‘The Succession of Baldwin II of Jerusalem: English Impact on the East’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 39 (1985), pp. 139–47; A. Murray, ‘Dynastic Continuity or Dynastic Change? The Accession of Baldwin II and the Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Medieval Prosopography, vol. 13 (1992), pp. 1–27; A. Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Faction and Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118–1134’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. 38 (1994), pp. 60–85.

Walter the Chancellor, pp. 88, 108; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 160–61; Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 179–81.

Walter the Chancellor, p. 78; Asbridge, ‘The significance and causes of the battle of the Field of Blood’, pp. 301–16. There may have been some truth to the accusations of sexual impropriety–even his supporter Walter the Chancellor hinted at this misdemeanour–but otherwise, Roger seems to have ruled, unchallenged, as a legitimate prince in his own right. The notion that he had unlawfully deprived Bohemond II of his inheritance was probably disseminated posthumously, both to account for the offender’s death and to validate the young prince-designate’s position. Unfortunately for Roger, the slur stuck and ever since he has generally been painted as an ill-fated, grasping regent. On attitudes towards Roger’s status and moral probity see: Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 139–43; T. Asbridge and S.E. Edgington (trans.), Walter the Chancellor’s The Antiochene Wars (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 12–26.

Murray, The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, pp. 135–46; H. E. Mayer, ‘Jérusalem et Antioche au temps de Baudoin II’, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Nov.–Déc. 1980 (Paris, 1980); T. Asbridge, ‘Alice of Antioch: a case study of female power in the twelfth century’, The Experience of Crusading 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P. W. Edbury and J. P. Phillips (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 29–47.

‘Liber ad milites Templi de laude novae militiae’, Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 3, ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais (Rome, 1963), pp. 205–39. For a collection of primary sources relating to the Templars translated into English see: M. Barber and K. Bate (trans.), The Templars: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated (Manchester, 2002). On the history of Templars and Hospitallers see: M. Barber, The New Knighthood. A History of the Order of the Templars (Cambridge, 1994); H. Nicholson, The Knights Templar (London, 2001); J. S. C. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1050–1310 (London, 1967); H. Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge, 2001); A. Forey, The Military Orders. From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1992). On castles in the crusader states during the twelfth century see: Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 204–50; H. Kennedy, Crusader Castles (Cambridge, 1994); R. Ellenblum, ‘Three generations of Frankish castle-building in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem’, Autour de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996), pp. 517–51.

Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 109–41; Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, pp. 74–92.

William of Tyre, p. 656; H. E. Mayer, ‘The Concordat of Nablus’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 33 (1982), pp. 531–43. On Outremer’s relations with western Europe in the period see: J. P. Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land. Relations between the Latin West and East, 1119–87 (Oxford, 1996). On the progress and consequences of the dispute between King Fulk and Queen Melisende see: H. E. Mayer, ‘Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 26 (1972), pp. 93–183; H. E. Mayer, ‘Angevins versus Normans: The New Men of King Fulk of Jerusalem’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 133 (1989), pp. 1–25; H. E. Mayer, ‘The Wheel of Fortune: Seignorial Vicissitudes under Kings Fulk and Baldwin III of Jerusalem’, Speculum, vol. 65 (1990), pp. 860–77; B. Hamilton, ‘Women in the Crusader States. The Queens of Jerusalem (1100–1190)’, Medieval Women, ed. D. Baker (Studies in Church History, Subsidia, 1) (1978), pp. 143–74; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘King Fulk of Jerusalem and “the Sultan of Babylon”’, Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, J. S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 55–66.

Melisende Psalter, Egerton 1139, MS London, British Library; J. Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098–1187 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 137–63; L.-A. Hunt, ‘Melisende Psalter’, The Crusades: An Encyclopaedia, ed. A. Murray, vol. 3 (Santa Barbara, 2006), pp. 815–17. On crusader art in general see: J. Folda, Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1982); J. Folda, The Nazareth Capitals and the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation (University Park, PA, 1986); J. Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098–1187 (Cambridge, 1995); J. Folda, ‘Art in the Latin East, 1098–1291’, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, ed. J. S. C. Riley-Smith (Oxford, 1995), pp. 141–59; J. Folda, ‘Crusader Art. A multicultural phenomenon: Historiographical reflections’, Autour de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996), pp. 609–15; J. Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (Cambridge, 2005); J. Folda, Crusader Art: The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1099–1291 (Aldershot, 2008); H. W. Hazard (ed.), Art and Architecture of the Crusader States (History of the Crusades, vol. 4) (Madison, Wis., 1977); L.-A. Hunt, ‘Art and Colonialism: The Mosaics of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem and the Problem of Crusader Art’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 45 (1991), pp. 65–89; N. Kenaan-Kedar, ‘Local Christian Art in Twelfth-century Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 23 (1973), pp. 167–75, 221–9; B. Kühnel, Crusader Art of the Twelfth Century (Berlin, 1994); G. Kühnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Berlin, 1988).

83 In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the crusader states were commonly interpreted, in a positive light, as a form of proto-colonialism. Particularly among French scholars such as Emmanuel Rey, the forces of integration, adaptation and acculturation were emphasised, and Outremer was painted as a glorious Franco-Syrian nation. In contrast, by the mid-twentieth century the opposite viewpoint was being championed by the likes of the Israeli academic Joshua Prawer: the crusader states were presented as oppressive, intolerant colonial regimes in which Latin conquerors exploited the Levant for their own material benefit and that of their western European homelands, while staunchly maintaining their own Frankish identity through the imposition of an apartheid-like separation from the indigenous population. E. G. Rey, Les Colonies Franques de Syrie au XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1883); J. Prawer, ‘Colonisation activities in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, vol. 29 (1951), pp. 1063–1118; J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (London, 1972); J. Prawer, ‘The Roots of Medieval Colonialism’, The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, ed. V. P. Goss (Kalamazoo, 1986), pp. 23–38. For the record of an illuminating symposium on this issue held in 1987 see: ‘The Crusading kingdom of Jerusalem–The first European colonial society?’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 341–66. For more up-to-date overviews see: Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, pp. 123–54; Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, pp. 3–31.